Newsletter: Will the Supreme Court let the Constitution defend itself against Trump?

Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, and it is Saturday, Feb. 10, 2024. Let’s look back at the week in Opinion.

It’s been said during Donald Trump’s presidency and afterward that democratic norms and institutions can hold up only if people rise to defend them. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us a glimpse of what it looks like when a democracy is unwilling to defend itself.

The consensus among court watchers after Thursday’s oral arguments over disqualifying Trump from the 2024 ballot because of the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban is that the justices will rule decisively in Trump’s favor, perhaps even 9-0. Having listened to much of the the arguments, I agree with that analysis: The justices clearly tipped their hands, with even the three in the liberal minority appearing to look for any reason to prevent individual states from enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

To do so, the justices will have to ignore the plain language of the amendment, which as I have written before seems tailor-made to prevent an ex-president such as Trump (or any former officer who had sworn an oath to the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection) from regaining office. In fact, the Colorado Supreme Court’s determination that Trump is indeed an insurrectionist came up only sporadically in the arguments; the justices seemed more concerned that kicking Trump off the ballot in Colorado or Maine would provoke officials in other states to remove candidates they don’t like from their ballots, resulting in electoral chaos.

I found this speculation troubling, because I didn’t know the question of whether to enforce portions of the Constitution hinged on how Republicans might respond in bad faith. And the discomfort with a few states tipping the outcome of an election drips with irony considering we conduct presidential elections under the archaic electoral college system, knowing full well that enforcing the letter of the Constitution can (and indeed has) produced undemocratic outcomes. Maybe we should try enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment too.

But that likely won’t happen. Writing for our op-ed page, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says the justices appear ready to ignore the Constitution to keep an insurrectionist on the ballot:

“Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett ... wondered whether one state court should be able to make such a determination. But every case must begin in one state. Ultimately, this is not a question of one state deciding so much as it is the United States Supreme Court looking at the facts and the law — as courts always do — and deciding whether Section 3 disqualifies Trump.

“This case provides the court with an opportunity to show that it follows the law and the facts, not just the political preferences of the justices. My sense from the oral argument is that we will have reason to be disappointed once more on that score.

“I hope I am wrong. If the court ignores the clear language and meaning of the 14th Amendment, it will be a loss for the Constitution and the country.”

In a righteous world, Trump couldn’t run. Does the Supreme Court live in that world? We were clued in to an answer on Thursday, and columnist Robin Abcarian says that “part of me thinks that allowing him to stay on the ballot would be the healthiest solution for the country.”

Still, the wheels of justice grind on for Trump, who could soon face trial in Washington. That’s because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically rejected his claim of total immunity from prosecution for actions taken during his presidency. Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy attorney general, says how soon Trump’s criminal trial in Washington resumes depends on the Supreme Court’s willingness to take up an expected appeal by the former president.

This California millionaire is peddling eternal life. Why do so many people believe him? In her final op-ed column for the L.A. Times, Jean Guerrero says her own anxiety over aging prompted her to contact a 46-year-old tech millionaire who brags about things like the frequency of his erections and youthfulness of his internal organs. What she found in her hike with him was an unreassuring faith in the power of artificial intelligence to improve human lives and the peddling of supplements, unproven longevity gene therapy and “nutty pudding.”

Republicans blocking Ukraine aid should consider this hero — and hang their heads in shame. If only House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) knew Maksym Butkevych, a Ukrainian prisoner of war who has been held by Russian forces since 2022 and hasn’t been heard from since August. If he had, writes Rory Finnin, Johnson might not be holding up aid to Ukraine.

Before the feds surveil Americans for Gaza protests, they should rein in warrantless spying. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) recently went on CNN and speculated that protesters calling for a cease-fire in Gaza may have financial ties to Russia and ought to be investigated by the FBI. This shows why, says ACLU lawyer Kia Hamadanchy, federal surveillance laws needs to be reformed to better protect U.S. citizens.

More from this week in opinion

From our columnists

• LZ Granderson: Tracy Chapman’s gray hair represents a lifetime of authenticity
• Robin Abcarian: Should you sleep with your pet? It depends
• Jackie Calmes: A Republican senator got the border deal the GOP said it wanted. Watch while his party betrays him

From the op-ed desk

• Wolves are back in Colorado’s wilderness. Here’s why that’s great for Earth
• What King Charles’ cancer diagnosis means for the modern monarchy
• California has a $38-billion deficit. So why are we still paying for prisons we don’t need?

From the editorial board

• One L.A. County Superior Court judge deserves reelection. Another doesn’t
• The Times’ recommendations for open Los Angeles County Superior Court judge seats
• SoCal’s smog-cutting plan is failing, and regulators would rather point fingers than fix it

Letters to the editor

• I live near L.A.’s tagged up, empty skyscrapers. They don’t look vibrant to me
• The Mona Lisa paint throwers signal what’s wrong with civilization
• The generous Steve Garvey I knew wasn’t the one portrayed in the L.A. Times